The Left -- composed of assorted socialists, Communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Castroites and others, both old and new--has worked along with and given some leadership to confrontation politics, but this latter development has had many participants who are not "left" in any traditional sense of the word and its essential theme is not that of the ideological Left. The recent evolution of the Left is a separate phenomenon of its own; and so is confrontation politics. That the Left evolved into new forms at the same time as "confrontation politics" arose has resulted in a confusion between the two. Confrontation politics deserves to be looked at in its own right. It has happened mostly on campus; the Left has evolved mostly off-campus. Between the two developments, political activism has risen to greater heights on campus than in any earlier decade. But it is confrontation politics that has set the stage and given the volume of numbers to the protest. The Left has been associated with it but the totality of the approach has not been essentially Left, with its emphasis on ideology, organization, and activity throughout society. Nor has the Left supplied large numbers of participants. The Left has joined the "popular front" rather than created it. The issue-by-issue protestors have been the new and largely dominant element.

Elements of "Confrontation Politics"

The elements of confrontation politics which have attracted my attention as being of particular importance are these:

1. A concern for power: There is an obsession with power. The refrain again and again is the acquisition of power. It seems to be assumed that, with power, evil can be eradicated; that, without it, nothing can be done. Participants want power versus the faculty, the college administration, industry, the unions and government. There is a determination to combine the new morality of the students with the old power now held by other people.

The role of persuasion in getting results from those who have power is considered quite small. There is little realization of the extent to which power is actually fractionalized, subject to checks and balances, and often held in gentle hands.

The recurrent theme is how students, who really have no formal power, can obtain and exercise power. "Student power" can bring pressure on a university certainly, on a society possibly. It requires no reliance on a reluctant faculty, a quiescent labor movement, a non-existent peasant class. It also requires no fixed ideology. Ideologies divide as well as unite. They divided students in the 1930's. But, after McCarthy in the United States and polycentrism in the Communist world, the line between the moderates and the liberals versus the radicals is no longer so sharply drawn or drawn at all. "Student power" allows a united front. The old ideological barriers are largely gone.

2. The university as a base for power. The campus is the chosen focal point for activity. It is the place to arouse interest, recruit members, raise money, organize action, and from which to launch attacks on chosen targets. The trade union, the political party, and established voluntary organizations are no longer viewed as generally useful vehicles. Politics, in particular, takes too long and involves compromise.

3. Distaste for the "establishment." There is almost total rejection of the organizations that administer the status quo. The status quo is viewed as dominated by the "military-industrial complex." The university is seen as a handmaiden to this complex, doing research for it and training its servants. Much of the intellectual establishment is viewed as bought and paid for.

Consensus politics practiced in the clubs and back rooms away from public scrutiny and attack is abhorred. So are the liberals who know what is right but do too little about it over too long a period. They are considered the worst hypocrites of all. Student activists tend to see the establishment in its totality as monolithic and discount any cracks that may appear in its granite face. All authority, except their own, is suspect. Exercise of authority by the university is seen not as a legitimate protection of the university but as a line of defense for the society that controls it.

Ideology is Suspect

4. Orientation to specific issues: Ideology is suspect. Also, given the variety of points of view among participants, it would be completely divisive. There is no more chewing on the beard of Karl Marx, although there is a certain blindness toward the leftwing authoritarianism of Cuba and China, even though authority in other and less harsh forms is violently opposed. If there could be said to be any inherent central ideology, it would be syndicalism with its emphasis on means. And syndicalism was never much of an ideology.

The choice, rather, is for individual issues, one or a few at a time. Issues with a high moral content are preferred--like those involving equality, freedom and peace. Intellect, like ideology, is suspect. Morality, instead, is substituted. Facts, history, analysis, theory are often considered more impediments than aids.

5. Participatory democracy. There is a distaste for all bureaucracies, including their own. The ideal is the Town Meeting, or the Quaker committee meeting. Maximum opportunity should be given for a sense of participation, even if it is only by a vote at a mass meeting. Nothing is really legitimate until it has been ratified by the action group.

6. Tactics for the short-run. The methods of action are all aimed at quick results or quick impact, such as the sit-in, the picket line, strike, march, vigil, teach-in or other forms of mass demonstration. The preparation of big programs, the conduct of prolonged negotiations, the organization of an extensive educational program, the establishment of an organization to exert constant pressure, are all avoided. The tactics can be described as "instantism." There is a chiliastic aspect--a dramatic action to be followed expectantly by dramatic reulsts. Here again there is a parallel to syndicalism and the I.W.W.--the use of force to correct a current grievance, perhaps someday a general strike, but no permanent collective bargaining and no contracts which only bind you when you want to fight, as the "wobblies" said. There is little perspective of time. The emphasis is on the event and not the process. And thus there is little consideration of all of the long-term consequences. Strategy and tactics are combined in a program of action now.

Style